Nikon AIS vs newer Nikon AF/AF-D/AF-S lenses?

[Sirius Glass]

Hi folks,

I'm looking for opinions on Nikon or Nikon compatible lenses...

I'm a photography student and Im looking to expand my lens selection for my digital (Nikon D850) and film (FE2) Nikon bodies.

I have some manual focus lenses which I love (28mm f2 AI, 35mm f2 AIS, 50mm f1.4 AIS, 85mm f1.4 AIS), but I've been wanting some wider and longer options, probably something in the 16-24mm range and something in the 150-300mm range. Im looking for sharp primes, I prefer manual focus, and I don't need especially fast lenses, most images I shoot are between f4 and f11. I love the build quality and size of the AI/AIS lenses I have.

So, my question is: are later AF/AF-D/AF-S lenses substantially better optically, especially with ultra-wide focal lengths? Are they worth the (I've heard) worse built quality, larger size, and worse manual focus feel?

Im also open to suggetions for lenses from other brands, but I need lenses which will work with my film body, which means aperture rings, although stop down metering is O.K.

Thanks!

Welcome to Photrio.

I prefer the Nikon AF lenses because they are easier to us with my cameras. I have two AIS lens, the Nikon 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye-NIKKOR AIS Manual Focus Lens {Rear Bayonet Filter} and the Nikon 15mm f/3.5 NIKKOR AIS Manual Focus Lens {Rear Bayonet Filter} which has the 110 degree wide field of view. I also have the Nikon 35mm f/2.8 PC-NIKKOR Non AI Manual Focus Lens, Black {52} with Chrome Knob. I purchased those because the AF version does not exist. All three are a bit harder to use on the choice of AF cameras I own, but that is because they are less compatible with the light meter systems. All the Nikon lenses are high quality, but I am not able by eye to determine which is optically better than others. I do not know whether or not the later AF/AF-D/AF-S lenses substantially better optically but since they were designed with the latest computer aided designed lenses, I would believe that they are optically better designed. If I was using no AF lenses only, I would most likely to prefer the AIS lenses.

 

[chuckroast]

These lenses aren't as superior as you think they are. The 50mm f/2 Ai whips their tails off, and the original long-barrel 35mm f/2.8 Ai is just as good as the current f/1.8 version, but with less distortion to boot.

Hell even the 28mm f/3.5 Ai-S fails to be embarrassed on the D850!

That's certainly been my experience mounting Ai and Ai-S lenses on a D750. I will say, though, that some lenses do show issues that the newer AFs supposedly fix. For example, the 35mm f/1.4 shows a lot of coma wide open. The AF that replaced it theoretically is better in this regard. Me? I don't much care

 

[George Mann]

In what way is the 50mm F2 a better lens that the G?

You will have to see the special properties of this lens for yourself. It's optimal aperture range lies between f/4 and f/11.

The use of a proper lens hood is mandatory.

 

[benveniste]

Hi folks,

I'm looking for opinions on Nikon or Nikon compatible lenses...

I'm a photography student and Im looking to expand my lens selection for my digital (Nikon D850) and film (FE2) Nikon bodies.

I have some manual focus lenses which I love (28mm f2 AI, 35mm f2 AIS, 50mm f1.4 AIS, 85mm f1.4 AIS), but I've been wanting some wider and longer options, probably something in the 16-24mm range and something in the 150-300mm range. Im looking for sharp primes, I prefer manual focus, and I don't need especially fast lenses, most images I shoot are between f4 and f11. I love the build quality and size of the AI/AIS lenses I have.

So, my question is: are later AF/AF-D/AF-S lenses substantially better optically, especially with ultra-wide focal lengths? Are they worth the (I've heard) worse built quality, larger size, and worse manual focus feel?

In the ultra wide range, the newer Nikkors with aperture rings aren't substantially better optically. The 20mm f/2.8 AI-s, AF, and AF-D all use the same optical formulae, as do the 24mm f/2.8 AI, AI-s, AF, and AF-D. AF-D lenses and some very late AI-s lenses use SIC multicoating, which is an incremental improvement over the NIC used by AI and AI-s lenses. I've never been a fan of the 18mm f/2.8 or of the 14mm f/2.8D, but I can't speak to their manual focus counterparts.

While I own a 20mm f/2.8 AF, I use my 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S far more often. In the f/4 to f/11 range, IMO it performs just as well as the 18mm, 20mm, and 24mm f/2.8 lenses.

In the 150-300mm range, some people prefer the AF 180mm lenses, and some prefer the AI-s ED lens. I used them both more than a decade apart, and all I can say is they are both good. I also feel the 300mm f/4 AF and AF-S lenses are better than the 300mm f/4.5 AI-s. The 300mm f/2.8 AI, AI-s, and AF all use the same optical formula, and I've never used any of the motorized 300mm lenses.

Im also open to suggestions for lenses from other brands, but I need lenses which will work with my film body, which means aperture rings, although stop down metering is O.K.

If your budget can stretch a bit, I'm quite happy with the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 and 25mm f/2 ZF.2 lenses. The Zeiss Milvus lenses are supposedly better still.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Some of the AF-Nikkor and AF-D Nikkor lenses are identical optically to the Manual focus AiS versions. The 20mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, and 180mm f2.8 lenses are unchanged optically from AiS to AF. I think the 24mm f2.8 is also unchanged.

The 35mm f2 has a completely different optical design in the AF version, compared to the AiS version. Some say the old one is better and some say the AF version is. I had the AF version and it was an excellent lens, but I have never tried to manual focus version. If you do get a 35mm f2 AF, make sure to get the D version. It is optically idential to the plain AF version, but the original AF-Nikkor 35mm f2 had a design flaw that caused the aperture blades to get oily. Cleaning them is just a temporary fix; they will get oily again. The AF-D version fixed this and is much more mechanically reliable.

The 28mm f2.8 lens saw a number of changes. The Ai version was improved with the AiS version; totally new optical design, reputedly the best 28mm lens Nikon made. When they went to AF, they did not use the superior Ais lens's optics. Instead they used the simple 5 element design from the 28mm f2.8 Series E lens, which is ok, but not great. The later AF-D version introduced a new optical design that was greatly superior to the original AF lens. I had one and it was excellent. The AiS version is said to be a little better, but I have not tried one.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Ah, uh, the 180mm Ais ED is a different optical design than the AF 180mm's, which are Internal Focus. The AF 180's stay the same optical design throughout their cosmetic changes, but optically they are essentially like a shorter 300mm f2.8 ED-IF.

My addition to the OP topic, the 24mm f2.8 AF is tremendous lens and currently can be a great value. Lately I've been attracted to early AF versions, the all plastic models are valued less, but I find them nicely durable.

 

[DTC]

The Ai-S are great for the Nikon FE and MF Nikon SLRs. For the D850, I would use more modern AF Nikon lenses. This is not because of how the more modern lenses are sharper designs (although often true), but based on the fact that it is difficult to achieve critical focus using MF lenses on the D850. DSLR viewfinders just aren't as accurate for MF as the older SLR viewfinders IMHO.

 

[rulnacco]

Lots of good advice here so far. I'll add a couple of other pieces, as I have a few lenses I use on both my FE (and F2/F3/F4) and my D810.

One, if you do decide to go with a 180/2.8--which, from all accounts, is excellent in every version--you might want to consider the second AF version, with the crinkle-coat paint. It's a bit lighter than the AI/AIS and probably less expensive (can't swear to that), uses internal focusing which I rather like, and actually has a very usable manual focus ring. I used to shoot a lot of high school sports for publication with the 180 and my FE, sometimes with a 2x teleconverter for daytime events. I don't know if you like to shoot flowers and bugs & other small creatures, but the 180 AF(-D) with a PN-11 extension tube is great; I called that my dragonfly combo, because even with skittish bugs like that, you could get a full-frame, full-body image without scaring them off.

If you want to go wide, you might consider the 17-35/2.8 AF-S lens. It will of course work great on your D850, and it also balances rather well on the FE(2) and has a decent manual focus ring, although of course not as nice as an MF Nikkor. I frequently use it on my FE.

Some of the MF lenses I regularly use on my DSLR as well as my film cameras are the 105/2.5 (already mentioned; rightfully a legend), the 200mm/F4 AI (sharp, sharp, sharp; even though I have the 180 as mentioned above, I keep this one because it takes 52mm filters, which means that with a reversing ring you can mount a 50mm lens on the front of it and get 4:1 magnification), the 80-200mm/F4.5 N zoom (which, as Ken Rockwell says, is still an excellent lens on film or digital), the 75-150mm/3.5 Series E, which is extraordinarily good on digital as well as film--and stupendously cheap despite its cult reputation, and the 300mm/F4 AF ED which I have not absolutely fallen in love with (largely because of its size and lack of versatility), but seems decent enough.

Oh, and a very good sleeper is the 70-300mm/F4-5.6D ED. Rockwell doesn't like it, but this is one of the numerous cases where my judgement differs from his. It's not brilliant, the MF ring is a bit wimpy, and your D850 will show up some of its flaws if you pixel peep. But it renders quite well on film, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it judiciously on digital as well.

To sum up, my normal walking-around kit with the FE (and occasionally also with my D810) is usually either the 35mm/F2 AIS + 75-150/3.5, or the 17-35/2.8 AF-S + 105/2.5, depending on whether I feel like shooting (or think I'll need) the zoom at the wide end, or the long end. The 35/75-150 combo is particularly light & compact, and versatile. It is to me pretty much the ideal combo for about 90% of what I shoot (and 5% more can be achieved by subbing the 28mm/2.0 AIS for the 35).

 

[Rob Skeoch]

You might find this short video I did on building a system useful. You've made great choices so far. I like the manual focus versions because I enjoy using a manual focus camera. However if I was still shooting with the F5 or F6, I would likely only have AF versions.

https://youtu.be/3sBf0vURdUU

 

[skahde]

I realise this is an older thread but for future reference, I used an AF f2.8/180mm N (crinckle-finish) on Nikon FE2 and FM2 as a manual lens. Looking back, I can only say good things about it and regret selling it. Sharp, nice bokeh, focussing was well dampened and easy but not as silky as on a proper MF-lens. I later tried a Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED AIs on the Nikon D800E which I found to be nice, sharp and contrasty too with notable traces of CA in high-contrast scenes e.g. shiny roof-tiles, reflecting sunlight under a blue sky is something I remember vividly: Purple cast on every corner but easily corrected. But I have some very nice portraits from my family taken with it, portraits from a distance, beautifull background-blur.

In retrospect I cant compare the optics 1:1 but certainly liked the handling of the AF-N IF-lens better than the rather fat AIs-ED which gets longer focussing. The AF to me also felt (!!!) considerably more rugged. If the AIs takes a beating it will hit the helicoid or dent/scratch the shade. This always made me feel a bit uneasy when I had it hanging over the shoulder. The AF-N has much of its outside made from crinckle-finish makrolon which will break at some point but will tolerate a lot of abuse without leaving a trace. The one thing being exposed is again the shade which is metal too but the finish is harder to visibly impair than on the shiny AIs-ED. Nevertheless: I wouldn't decline a nice offer on both.